mikelz777

So we're all in agreement then? That 70's music sucks? ..........Just kidding!! Well, I checked out everyone's recommendations (thank you) as much as I could and found a lot of my decisions were made for me because of price and availability on a lot of Shaw's CDs. I wasn't able to find sound samples for some of the recommendations and some that I liked could only be had for prices I wouldn't be willing to pay. It looks like my Woody Shaw acquire/wish list for the near future will include Little Red's Fantasy, Lotus Flower, Imagination, The Real Thing (Louis Hayes) and possibly The Moontrane. What are people's thoughts on the 4 volume live dates on Highnote?

What do I think? I think that Mannheim Steamroller represents among the worst of what Christmas music has to offer. But, to each his own. If they turn your Christmas crank then have at it. Are you a sales rep or street teamer? Just curious.

Now when is the Dizzy Universal Mosaic going to come down in price?

Let us know what you think. I've had my eye on that box as well. I've got it, and I like it a lot. I know a lot of people poo-poo Proper, but this box is a good way of getting a lot of Navarro for a little diniro. (Money, that is. Greenbacks. Treasury tea.) I'm not a Proper poo-pooer so that's good news. I'll have to put it on my Christmas list. Maybe the potential giver will feel attracted to this one because it will feel like they're giving a lot for a little.

My pleasure Ron, it's nice to be able to contribute to the community. People here seem to be pretty good about pointing out good buys when they encounter them and I've had the pleasure of taking advantage of a few of them myself. It looks like we may have killed the merchant's supply in one day. I don't see a re-listing on Half.com and the listing on Amazon has disappeared. I saw at least four of the sets go for $65.99 besides mine. Who else got them? Free For All?

This merchant must have several copies because I see that they are re-listing the set as they are sold. I purchased one and at least three more have gone at this price since this morning. Keep checking on this Half.com listing if you're looking to take advantage of this bargain before the merchant runs out.

Let us know what you think. I've had my eye on that box as well.

I'd prefer to use the money spent on the set to acquire music I would enjoy more and listen to more frequently. Mike, I have a number of albums that I did not like at first, but that I have come to enjoy over time. This box set is cheap because it has gone out of print. You may never have another chance to obtain this music. I suggest that you hold off for a long while on selling the box until you have given yourself a better chance to come to appreciate the music. Actually, that's probably good advice and a good idea. I've experienced the same thing with certain artists. If I still feel the same way a year or two down the road I could consider selling it then. Would I then get chastised by others for selling it for twice or more what I paid for it or is copying the only pet issue involved here? For now, I think I'll just peruse the Definitive, Jazz Factory and Lone Hill catalogs and see what sort of gems I can find in there. Oh, and some JSPs too...

As of this posting, the same merchant (closeout video) has a new one listed on Amazon for $74.99 which is still a nice deal. There are some others there as well from other sellers for the same pricing but they are either used and/or missing boxes or booklets. I'm not sure if one can assume the cybercitymall listing includes the box or not. ("All discs still factory sealed! Book also like new!")

Gone! That didn't take long!

The Universal/EU version of the Buddy Rich Mosaic (7 - CD) is currently selling for $65.99 (new) from a merchant on Half.com. (link below) It's a nice bargain for anyone wanting to pick that set up. Buddy Rich Mosaic on Half.com

I'd prefer to use the money spent on the set to acquire music I would enjoy more and listen to more frequently.

I got around to listening to the last 2 discs in this set. I liked some of it and openly disliked some of it. This box set is definitely a mixed bag. My overall impressions? I don't know, I guess I'm on the fence. There's a good portion I probably wouldn't care if I never heard it again. I would have been perfectly happy with a small handful of the releases included in the set but ironically, it probably would have cost me more to collect that small handful than what I paid for this set which includes much more. I'm probably going to make 2-3 discs worth of burns, carefully store it away on the shelf, wait for all the cheap sets to clear out on the various web sites then try and sell it off for enough to get my money back. ($29.99 delivered) From the prices I see out there now, I'd be taking a hit if I tried to sell it now.

Jon Eardley - The Jon Eardley Seven Jon Eardley - From Hollywood To New York (a 2-fer) I was in the mood for some trumpet and discovered John Eardley in keeping with my goal to try and limit my new purchases to picking up artists I don't yet have in my collection. I'm looking forward to both as he shares the front line with Zoot Sims and Phil Woods on the first CD and with J.R. Monterose on half of the second. It should be some pretty nice stuff.

Amazon.UK killed the dream...got my cancellation notice today.

Robert Duvall in Apocalypse Now..........right?

All right, my English ale is safely in the fermenter and now's the worst part, the clean up. Unfortunately, I can't say I enjoyed "Black Is The Color". I wasn't real big on "Multiple" either but I really enjoyed "Tress-Cun-Deo-La" off that one. I'm enjoying "Canyon Lady" so far but I think I'm Joe Henderson-ed out for today. I'll have to leave discs 7 and 8 for another day.

Finished disc three and particularly enjoyed the funky "If You're Not Part Of The Solution, You're Part Of The Problem". I don't know what the general opinion of "In Pursuit Of Blackness" is from the 4th disc, but I really enjoyed it. I enjoyed the whole of disc four with that and the beginning of "Joe Henderson In Japan". Right now I'm into disc 5 and "Black Is The Color" which I'm on the fence about. I'm not a big fan of electric piano but it seems to be working in this context. This stuff is a bit challenging for me. Time to start chilling the boiled ale (wort) to get it ready for the fermenter. I love the smell of boiling malt and hops in the kitchen!

Do you listen to other musics from other eras with similar considerations in mind? Do you know enough about them to do so? And if not, how much of this "hearing" is reflective of a perhaps unconscious post-Marsailis "70s all bad, me save jazz!" revisionist attitude affecting how you hear what it is you hear. I mean, jesus, you want to talk about "stiffness" and "sweetness", hell, there's any number of albums from the 50s & 60s that are full of that, there's any number of "classic" hard bop sides that swing by default rather than by inspiration, and let's not even get into the much-beloved (including by me) organ-group genre which if if you know what you're hearing is chock full of "stiffness" and "sweetness". Not that it matters, but it seems that 70s music gets tabbed as being somehow unique in this regard, and I'm here to say that that's just so much falseness. Rosewood is no more "stiff" or "sweet" than any number of medium/medium large ensemble records of any other day, and the core material & playing is a lot hipper than most of those. Any time you get "charts" involved, you better get skilled section players in the mix, or else have a lot of rehearsal time. I don't think that they had either on Rosewood, and that accounts for the less than wholly relaxed/organic execution. As for the arrangements, yeah, ok, matter of taste, but if any of this stuff is "sweeter" in style or content than, say, a typical Tadd Dameron or Al Cohn arranged date, then we have fundamentally different definitions of sweet... Yeah, you're entitled to your opinion. I'm just challenging you to listen beyond what you you think you're hearing to what actually may or may not be there. In these dyas, when so many are coming to the music "after the fact", I think it's important to set aside preconceptions, especially those of the "conventional wisdom" type that have popped up over the last 25 or so years, and get a grip on what was really going on at the time, and why certain things sound like they sounded (the Joe Henderson Milestone sides are another case in point here - "forefront of jazz" none of it is, but if I hear anybody say "dated" again about it, I ain't responsible for the cleanup...). Again - ALL MUSIC SOUNDS DATED. If it doesn't then it's because "you" don't have enough of a frame of reference to realize it. Again, not trying to bust your chops, just trying to get people in general to get out of this....cloud that "70s jazz" is any more (or any less) "dated" than any other era. Stuff's gonna sound like it sounds, and there's always a reason, be it from 1926, 1976, or 2056. And it is possible to understand what those reasons are, if you wanna do the homework (and if you don't, fine, but expect to get called on it by an asshole like me every once inna while ) and figure out what the deal is/was/always will be. So let's look at specifics rather than catch-phrases that really don't mean shit. That's all I'm sayin', ok? Whatever it is that makes this music and its kind less appealing to me is not adequately described by whatever label we want to put on it whether it be "less timeless" or "dated" or whatever. I can't seem to adequately put it into words and I haven't yet read input by anyone else that would accurately describe it either. What you quoted me saying above is just my feeble attempt to try and describe what it is about Rosewood that doesn't totally work for me. It's not some kind of philosphy or filter I use to measure all music. The "unconscious post-Marsailis "70s all bad, me save jazz!" revisionist attitude" that you refer to isn't even remotely a factor in choosing what I listen to. Choosing music to buy or listen to is not as complicated as that for me. I listen to it and if I like it, I like it and if I don't, I don't. I don't put a bunch of analysis into it other than whatever mood might hit me whether it be a piano dominated trio, a sax/trumpet quartet, big band, etc., etc. That makes me an equal opportunity sifter. If I like it, I like it and if I don't, I pass on it because of that and not on the basis of whatever decade it comes from. I've passed on a lot of music from every decade of jazz from the 20's to the 00's. I'm never going to buy music because it's considered important, a milestone in the evolution of jazz or because of the skillful execution if I don't actually enjoy it. For example, one of my all time favorite groups is the Crusaders. It's their early to mid-70's material which first attracted me. I don't own or want to listen to any of their material from mid-70's "Free As The Wind" or beyond because it isn't enjoyable to me. It's the point where Wayne Henderson left the group but besides that, their sound changed for the worse for me. They seemed to become more slick, calculated and rehearsed sounding and like they were over produced. I don't know if it was the result of the influences of the 70's or what but it happened to occur in the 70's. It's the sound that was less appealing to me and not the fact that it was the 70's. That being said, the charge that 70's music is somehow unique in its general regard is a prevalent enough in general thought (whether it be false or not) that it shouldn't be ignored or totally dismissed. As to why, I don't know and can't explain it. It would make an interesting study. Again, I don't actively choose music based on when it was made but on what is appealing to my ear. As it turns out, I am very much like a large bulk of jazz listeners in that the vast majority of my collection comes from the 50's and 60's. (By far.) The rest by decade in order of most to least in my collection would be the 70's, 80's, 00's, 40's, 90's and the 20's/30's with the 3rd place 70's and what follows about 23% or less in total number from what I have from the 50's and 60's. Your challenging me to listen beyond what I think I'm hearing to what actually may or may not be there or that I set aside preconceptions or "conventional Wisdom" is rather presumptuous of how I should listen to music or how I actually listen to music. I don't necessarily agree with your assertion that "ALL MUSIC SOUNDS DATED." There's music that is 50 or more years old that still sounds fresh, exciting and new. There is a timeless quality about them that makes them equally appealing now as they were when they were recorded. They seem to transcend the limitations that some would set on them based on their time or era even if they are readily identified to that era by listening to them. By the same token, there is music that does not transcend and is "stuck" in time and thus, for lack of better terms, "dated" or stale. Ultimately, it comes down to one's personal tastes. If it so happens that it leads a lot of people to music other than what was done in the 70's (or whatever eras) then so be it. It doesn't make that music any less valid, it's just people's personal tastes.

Today I'm cooking up a batch of English pale ale on the stove top so I have a lot of down time to listen to these CDs. I had already listened to 2 or 3 but I grabbed them out of order and not from the case I was thinking of so whatever I thought I was listening to according to the book wasn't. Today I'm starting over. My initial impressions - A lot of this music is more "out" than what I usually listen to so a lot of this is challenging to me. I liked all of disc 1 which contained "The Kicker" and most of "Tetragon". With this and disc 2 when things were moving out, I could could follow it and kind of see where they were going and what they were doing. With repeated listens I'm pretty sure it would grow on me more but I did enjoy it. I can't say that I enjoyed "The Bead Game" or "You Don't Know What Love Is" which opened the 2nd disc. The blending and mixing of horns with Lee Konitz on the latter was kind of interesting for me at first but quickly became too tiresome and meandering for me. The rest of the disc was enjoyable and I was a bit surprised by the Nat Adderley material being more out and abstract than I expected. I'm currently enjoying "At The Lighthouse" on disc 3. Woody Shaw is a great bonus on this one. I should be moving on to disc 4 with "Pursuit Of Blackness" and "Joe Henderson In Japan" by the time my ale starts to boil.

It kind of makes you wonder what's going on. Are there several cartons of these sitting in a container on the docks or in a warehouse somewhere waiting to be shipped to various distributors? There must have been some kind of promise that was made to vendors at some time.

Wow, sounds like I struck an exposed nerve. I wasn't expecting such an extreme reaction. It sounds like it merely comes down to our definitions of "dated". By dated, I certainly didn't mean to disparage the musicianship or playing of Woody or any of the others. Actually, I think the playing is very good and Woody is excellent. I also certainly didn't mean that it sucks. Corny? Corny would be too strong of a term and wouldn't be an accurate or fair descriptor and not how I would describe it but you could probably see it in the distant horizon from where some of this material stands in my opinion. For me, there may even be the slightest suggestion of a hint of cheese in the larger group arrangements. Maybe "less timeless" would be a better term than dated. I listened to the samples for Rosewood again at Amazon and stand by my original opinion. I think Woody's playing is excellent but it's not set within a framework that I would want to listen to with any regularity. The smaller group material isn't bad but like Niko said, there's a stiffness/sweetness there in the larger ensembles which is not especially attractive to my ears. Maybe it's the flux of music/fusion of that time or the production values reflective of that time which make it somewhat unappealing to me. I didn't by any means intend to attack Woody's skill or playing on Rosewood but I just know that I'd probably listen to it, say "That was nice" and then relegate it to the shelf to gather dust while I played other Woody Shaw CDs I've acquired.

NO MONK FOR YOU!! NEXT!! I must have fallen through some sort of system crack for Amazon.UK to send me a delay notice for an anticipated delivery in Jan. 2008. I ordered on the 6th, the day after this first posted which appears to be after some who've already received cancellation notices. The way it's looking, the only delay for me is when I'm going to receive my cancellation notice. Oh well, if it sounds too good to be true..... Didn't someone here order the set from a Marketplace seller for a similar price? I wonder if they ever received it.

I just received Woody Shaw's In My Own Sweet Way in the mail yesterday and I'm already on my 4th listening! I think this CD is excellent! He's backed by the fine trio of Fred Henke (p), Neil Swanson (b), and Alex Deutsch (d). This CD is right in the pocket for me. It's got fire and some adventurous playing but doesn't really go beyond a line approaching "out" playing. The trio are very complimentary to Woody's playing and provide excellent support. I haven't listened to the CDs to compare so I may be totally wrong but pianist Fred Henke seems to bring to my mind Kenny Barron playing with Stan Getz or George Cables with Art Pepper. I really enjoyed his playing. I think Woody's playing is impeccable- beautiful and lyrical but never approaching boring or routine. I'd love to have more like this. Can anyone out there recommend other Woody Shaw CDs that compare favorably to In My Own Sweet Way? I currently only own Stepping Stones which I'd consider a different animal. I almost picked up Rosewood at one time (which I'd also consider a different animal) but changed my mind because the material and sound came off as a bit dated to me. Imagination is one title I was looking at but I'm not all that familiar with Shaw's recordings.

What's the most you are willing to spend on a single CD? It's great when you can find a bargain in the $4-$7 range (with shipping) but most of my purchases seem to land in the $7 to $10 range. (with shipping) When a CD is out of print and hard to find, then I'm willing to spend more but eventually there comes a limit. I once spent $23.00 on a 2-fer single CD and it bothered me to spend that much but it was something that had been out of print, was hard to find unless you were willing to spend obscene amounts and I had been looking for one several years. As it turns out, within a year, it was reissued and readily available for half that price or less. I guess we often pay for our impatience. Right now I'm looking at some CDs from a rather obscure artist whose CDs are out of print but can be had on the internet for some pretty high prices. I really like the artist (who would be new to me) and really want the CDs but not to the point that they would be indispensable or I'd die if I didn't have them. I'm trying to decide what I'd be willing to pay for them which is significantly higher than what I'm used to paying for CDs. What's your limit?